What empirical data exists on ownership concentration among the largest U.S. media companies?
Executive summary
Empirical evidence on ownership concentration among the largest U.S. media companies is fragmented but consistent in one core finding: a small set of conglomerates and tech platforms command disproportionate reach across traditional and digital channels, even as measurement methods and definitions vary across studies [1] [2]. Quantitative indexes and academic reviews provide snapshots—ranging from curated lists of “Big Six” conglomerates to databases that index hundreds of legacy outlets—but they also warn that inconsistent reporting and changing business models make a single, definitive percentage difficult to assert [3] [4] [1].
1. What the major public indexes actually measure — who’s counted and why it matters
Different empirical projects count different things: Harvard’s Future of Media Project compiled an index of 176 “traditional” U.S. media parent companies and stand‑alone outlets to map reach across newspapers, TV, and major cable networks, deliberately excluding podcasts and individual creators to focus on institutional players [4], while advocacy groups like Free Press restrict their spotlight to the 35 largest media and tech firms to trace political and market influence [2]. Those methodological choices—what qualifies as “media,” whether digital platforms are included, and whether ownership is measured by revenue, audience reach, or holdings—drive divergent numerical claims about concentration and explain why empirical statements must always be read with their definitions attached [4] [2].
2. The shorthand figures: “Six corporations” and other widely circulated metrics
A persistent shorthand—often cited in popular reporting and advocacy pieces—says that six corporations control nearly 90% of U.S. media; that claim appears across secondary sources and summaries of consolidation narratives [5] [6]. More recent business‑oriented lists, such as The Motley Fool’s “Big 6,” continue to present six dominant conglomerates as the practical reality of market power in 2025–2026, reflecting concentration in cable, film studios, and broadcast networks [3]. These shorthand figures are useful heuristics for public conversation but rely on aggregation choices and therefore should not be mistaken for a single authoritative empirical census without methodological transparency [3] [5].
3. Big Tech and the changing terrain: dollars, reach, and definitional drift
Longitudinal analyses produced by research projects such as the Global Media and Internet Concentration Project document a shift in the last two decades from legacy broadcasters toward platform distribution, estimating a $1.34 trillion media industry by 2022 and highlighting the rising dominance of telecoms and Big Tech (e.g., AT&T, Verizon, Google) in distribution and advertising markets [1]. That report explicitly warns that inconsistent data reporting across companies and sectors complicates efforts to produce a single concentration statistic, and it frames the empirical story as an evolving mix of traditional conglomerates and digital gatekeepers [1].
4. What peer‑reviewed research says about concentration and content diversity
Academic reviews capture two empirical truths: consolidation through mergers reduces the number of owners in given markets (a measurable structural concentration), but the downstream effects on news diversity and content quality are mixed in the evidence base [7]. The Journal of Communication’s recent review notes studies showing homogenization and recycled content under consolidated ownership alongside other studies that fail to find a consistent negative relationship between ownership concentration and diversity—meaning ownership concentration is empirically observable, while its normative effects remain contested [7].
5. Practical limits of the empirical record and where measurement gaps remain
The strongest empirical claims come from curated indexes and market reports that enumerate holdings, revenues, and audience reach [4] [2] [1]; the weakest area is cross‑sector comparability—combining broadcast, print, cable, streaming, and platforms into one single metric—because companies report different data and new revenue/attention channels (OTT, social platforms) escape legacy regulatory accounting [1] [4]. Where sources do not provide consistent, comparable data, the reporting must acknowledge that a precise consolidated percentage for “ownership concentration among the largest U.S. media companies” depends on definitions and remains an imprecise, contested empirical judgment [1].